At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

The electorate no longer cares. A failed president was re-elected, and those who come next will be no better. We have reached the tipping point. With QE and our debt, there is no saving this ship.

There's no way of getting around a party system. It's the only way of accomplishing anything in a democracy: organization and consolidation. Everything else here is pretty much alarmism. Obama has actually done a lot to reach across the aisle, and is not a failed president. As far as the fiscal debate goes, taxes only on the top 2% is already a compromise. Taxes should actually be going up for everyone.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

The electorate no longer cares. A failed president was re-elected, and those who come next will be no better. We have reached the tipping point. With QE and our debt, there is no saving this ship.

Welcome back.I don't think they have fallen for the two-party system, I think they have fallen for party politics by alligning themselves with a party and not ideals. So many people vote D because "they're for the little guy", "I'm not rich", or "I'm in a union, and "D is the party of unions", even though they know nothing about the individual candidate. Similarly, people will vote R because of their allegience via racism, religion, immigration, or abortion.

And, of course, either side will put up some moderate for election to secure the independant vote, because they know their staunch fans will vote without knowing anything about the candidate, and both partyies will say, "Well, we don't want the immoral socialist/Bible-thumping union buster to win, so vote for us like a good sheep".

If people voted on principle and the individual, there would be bigger differences between the two parties.

At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

The electorate no longer cares. A failed president was re-elected, and those who come next will be no better. We have reached the tipping point. With QE and our debt, there is no saving this ship.

There's no way of getting around a party system. It's the only way of accomplishing anything in a democracy: organization and consolidation.

I'm not one to idolize European democracy. But in relation to your point, have a look.

Everything else here is pretty much alarmism.

What do you mean by this her?

Obama has actually done a lot to reach across the aisle, and is not a failed president.

Agree with the former perhaps, the latter seems laughable a position to hold.

As far as the fiscal debate goes, taxes only on the top 2% is already a compromise. Taxes should actually be going up for everyone.

Go up for everyone? I agree, everyone should just pay more and then perhaps entitlements/military spending won't continue to skyrocket uncontrollably. Oh yeah I find that in order to get someone off drugs, it's usually better to up your habit.

: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.

You know the reason that there isn't that much difference between the two main parties? It's the job of politicians to broadly represent the electorate. Any party which holds any extreme position is punished at the polls. That's democracy. And the main parties change positions when the public changes positions. If you want to change things, you have to change public opinion first. That's just the system we live in. It's what libertarians need to do. It's what anarchists need to do. It's what Communists and socialists and racists need to do. That's how you change the system.

At 12/7/2012 5:27:35 AM, Kinesis wrote:You know the reason that there isn't that much difference between the two main parties? It's the job of politicians to broadly represent the electorate. Any party which holds any extreme position is punished at the polls. That's democracy. And the main parties change positions when the public changes positions. If you want to change things, you have to change public opinion first. That's just the system we live in. It's what libertarians need to do. It's what anarchists need to do. It's what Communists and socialists and racists need to do. That's how you change the system.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that. I'm pretty the sure the whole point about raving about the single party system is to *change* the system we live in.

: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.

At 12/7/2012 9:24:34 AM, drafterman wrote:Calm down everyone. I found it. It was behind the couch all along.

I had the short-lived urge to say "It's always in the last place you look." but then I remembered that that's a retarded truism. Does anyone actually look places after they've found what they're looking for?

: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.

At 12/7/2012 9:24:34 AM, drafterman wrote:Calm down everyone. I found it. It was behind the couch all along.

I had the short-lived urge to say "It's always in the last place you look." but then I remembered that that's a retarded truism. Does anyone actually look places after they've found what they're looking for?

I think it's a corruption of what was probably "It's always in the last place you expect."

At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

The electorate no longer cares. A failed president was re-elected, and those who come next will be no better. We have reached the tipping point. With QE and our debt, there is no saving this ship.

People like us are the only party that matters in all governments. We are here because we wish to express the issues and find an agreement. Once an agreement that majorities has been proposed, government is forced to accept or ignore it.People who have the ability to communicate during adversity can accomplish any possibility they can bring to question. Depending on the motivation the adversity can instill and the time frame the proposition proposes. As well as the intellect that the party possess.

People here forums and networks like them are what corrupt governments should fear most. Places of untainted public opinions so mutual agreements without a governments influence may be attained. We don't even need guns to ensure our opinions are understood, we have each other to learn from and gather non-violent instruction.

At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system.

People like us are the only party that matters in all governments.We are here because we wish to express the issues and find an agreement. Once an agreement that majorities support is made, government is forced to accept or ignore the agreement.People who have the ability to communicate during adversity can accomplish any possibility they can bring to question. (Depending on the amount of motivation the adversity can instill, and the time frame the proposition proposes. As well as the intellect that the party possess.)People in forums and networks similar are what corrupt governments should fear most.Places of untainted public opinions so mutual agreements without a governments influence may be attained.We don't even need guns to ensure our opinions are understood, we have each other to learn from and gather non-violent instruction.

Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

So the problem isn't necessarily that it's a 2 party system but rather that both parties are essentially behaving similarly.

The electorate no longer cares.

Yep, and that's sad.

A failed president was re-elected, and those who come next will be no better.

I fear that you might be correct on this point as well.

We have reached the tipping point. With QE and our debt, there is no saving this ship.

I hope and pray that you're wrong but your argument is pretty convincing.

*****************************

At 12/6/2012 4:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:There's no way of getting around a party system. It's the only way of accomplishing anything in a democracy: organization and consolidation. Everything else here is pretty much alarmism.

You mean the "fiscal cliff" is alarmism or the out-of-control deficit spending?

Obama has actually done a lot to reach across the aisle, and is not a failed president.

He's done next to nothing to reach across the aisle and Boehner just licks it up.

As far as the fiscal debate goes, taxes only on the top 2% is already a compromise.

Yes, if by compromise you mean dissent.

Taxes should actually be going up for everyone.

Even if you confiscated everyone's income, it would be like a sparrow's fart to a hurricane.

At 12/7/2012 9:21:00 AM, socialpinko wrote:If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that. I'm pretty the sure the whole point about raving about the single party system is to *change* the system we live in.

...and I said how to do that in my post.

Anyway, the only way to keep democracy and not have a 'single' party system is to have an electorate sharply divided across a wide range of issues. America is divided, but it isn't that divided.

At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

At 12/7/2012 9:21:00 AM, socialpinko wrote:If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that. I'm pretty the sure the whole point about raving about the single party system is to *change* the system we live in.

...and I said how to do that in my post.

You said how to do that while keeping in accordance with the democratic system. Not the same thing.

Anyway, the only way to keep democracy and not have a 'single' party system is to have an electorate sharply divided across a wide range of issues. America is divided, but it isn't that divided.

I dunno, maybe. I guess you would have to presuppose that democracy is worth a rat's arse to care though.

: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.

At 12/6/2012 4:22:07 PM, RaxsonJaine wrote:Americans have fallen for the two-party system. The only differences come in the form of miniscule social policies, so the country burns financially while people argue over marraige rights.

The electorate no longer cares. A failed president was re-elected, and those who come next will be no better. We have reached the tipping point. With QE and our debt, there is no saving this ship.

There's no way of getting around a party system. It's the only way of accomplishing anything in a democracy: organization and consolidation. Everything else here is pretty much alarmism. Obama has actually done a lot to reach across the aisle, and is not a failed president. As far as the fiscal debate goes, taxes only on the top 2% is already a compromise. Taxes should actually be going up for everyone.

Oh crap. He's sliding deeper into despair.

If taxes go up, it kills jobs and lowers wages, and shrinks the economy, by cutting consumption and private investment. It eliminates growth, or at least reduces it. By reducing growth, you reduce worker wages, and thus reduce living standards.

The Bush tax cuts on the top 2%, if they expired it would kill 700,000 jobs or more. Investment and dividend taxation would about double after Obamacare is included. Those top 2% run businesses that employ over half of all Americans.

It would be devastating. It would raise revenue, around $370 billion/year, but it would cost the economy to recede under the weight of the taxation, probably only generating $300 billion, or less. The tax cuts expiring on the top 2% would raise only about $40 billion, at a max of $70 billion.

We need to cut spending to be serious. And raising revenues this way are just juicy targets for politicians to keep spending. Reform and phase out entitlements and welfare to reduce the debt, which would be much more effective and beneficial than raising taxes for sure.

It's not fair that government can seize 35-50% of your income and redistribute to others who didn't earn that money, distributing it to special interests and cronies, and on ineffective and inefficient government programs. I don't see why you support higher taxes (besides for reducing the deficit). Basically anything that gov't does can be better performed by the private sector (see my sig). Why? Because of supply and demand, the invisible hand, and the built in structure of signals and incentives.

When gov't took charge of the swine flu project, what happened? They pumped in millions, or possibly a few billion into it. Then, shortages occurred. There was lousy distribution of the vaccine, and in some areas, gov't considered forcing people to take the vaccine for public health reasons. Other sources show that their vaccine may be ineffective. If this happened in the private sector, it would be forced to close down. They would stop receiving revenues, and forced to improve their product or go bankrupt. And the free market is great at allocating resources efficiently through prices. Gov't simply cannot do this as well.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan